Thursday, June 12, 2008

Happy Loving Day

BTW ... a friend of mine (who has a very Pauline view about "law" in general, though, c.f. infra) doesn't see how the law can discriminate on the basis of age in terms of having a separate drinking age than age of majority ("if you're of the age of consent, how can they say you still can't drink?").

Is there a strict scrutiny argument here? Can the state discriminate on the basis of age in re drinking beyond saying "you have to be an adult"? Of course, many of the same people who are upset at "stupid gummint laws that say 18 y.o.s can't drink" and go on and on with their conception of "the law is an ass" also, if you argue "well, you could also apply strict scrutiny toward the denial of marriage licenses to gay couples" and suddenly they hide behind tradition (as if they were Laban trying to marry off Leah)?

Sometimes the conservative mindset seems to boil down to "law is futile, but I am such a nervous/shy person that I am uncomfortable in a society without a bunch of social rules" ... and thus they love every hide-bound "tradition" but view the rule of law with the same contempt that Roper showed toward More's ideas in A Man for All Seasons: whence, even if they sincerely care about the poor, their distrust of "big, legalistic gummint" together with their social conservative love of having a legislative agenda that supports "traditional morality".